This week I’ve been reading about the controversy associated with Michael J. Fox’s commercials supporting embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. Of course, Rush Limbaugh immediately criticized it as a political ploy, which, it was, but political ploys aren’t necessarily bad.
To begin with, I don’t have a problem with a celebrity (or anyone else, for that matter) making a commercial supporting a cause they believe in. It seems to be the American way, even if the commercial is based more on an emotional plea than a substantive logical argument. I would argue that 90%+ of the commercials on television are an appeal to emotion. Why else do beer commercials have scores of young, blond-headed women?
I read an article (Link) this morning that said the NIH (National Institute of Health) agreed with the premise of the commercial—that embryonic stem cells show the most promise in curing Parkinson’s disease. A reader commented on the article, arguing that adult stem cells are presently more effective than embryonic stem cells. Another reader quickly pointed out that we never know what is effective until it has been researched. 500 years ago, people would have scoffed to hear that a mold could cure a myriad of diseases (penicillin). So the argument that embryonic stem cells aren’t currently effectual does not mean much.
Fox seems like a nice guy, and I certainly don’t want him to suffer from a disease that is slowly eroding his ability to live. Say for example, another adult had the cure to Parkinson’s disease. The adult walked over to Fox and said, “Michael, I can cure your disease. All that is required is for you to take some cells from my spine and inject them in your brain. Unfortunately, when you take these cells from me, I’ll be a quadriplegic.” I’m sure that Fox would thank him for his help and graciously decline the offer. Why–he could not accept an offer that destroyed another life.
What if that man was a convicted felon that was soon to be executed? The man was going to die within the next twenty-four hours but refused to sign the consent forms because he was a Muslim and believed that would defile his body. Would it be right to force him to give his spinal cells to save Fox? Once again, I’m sure Fox would decline this offer because it would violate the sanctity of life.
Most of the western world has an intrinsic belief that human life is worthwhile and should not unnecessarily be destroyed. That is the reason that we have statutes against murder and dismemberment. In fact, most of our laws have a basis in the concept that it is “wrong” to injure someone else. So the question we must ask is: what is human life?
The root question in the stem cell debate is not the effectual nature of the cells, but a question of what is human life and when does it begin? Is a child with down-syndrome human? Is an elderly person with Alzheimer’s disease a human? In both cases, we would agree that these people are human and their lives, however difficult they may be, are valuable. So then, when does it begin? Most in the scientific world believe that life begins after birth, but in the Christian world, life beings at conception. And for me, since I believe that life begins at the point of conception, I must unequivocally state that destroying fertilized human eggs is an unethical behavior. I cannot condone a behavior that is unethical.
Most of us agree that theft is wrong. We know it’s wrong when some bully steals another kid’s lunch money. What if I asked you if stealing some paper clips from your work was wrong? What about stealing $2 billion from your work is wrong? Would you agree that both activities are unethical? Both actions are wrong, even though the amount of wrong done seems to be different. It’s easy to repay a few paper clips. It’s tough to repay $2 billion. To a certain extent, we feel like killing embryos is similar to taking some paper clips: it’s small and no one will care. But the premise is the same—the amount of wrong done does not change it’s natural unethical state.
You may ask, “What if embryonic stem cells will save and improve the lives of millions? Doesn’t this make it an ethical behavior? I mean, the end is so beneficial, we must suffer through the means, right.” All this argument sounds nice, but it’s a nasty and slippery slope that will lead to unintended consequences. During the 1930’s and 1940’s, Germany embarked on a number of scientific experiments on Jewish and political prisoners. They learned a lot about the human body, including some significant gains in our knowledge of hypothermia. They did this because they believed the suffering inflicted by the test subjects would be more beneficial to the rest of society. And that made their actions right. It didn’t hurt that they believed the test subjects were not the chosen race.
The question therefore is this: what is human life? Don’t allow the debate to rage on about curing diseases. This isn’t about being “anticure” as Robert Alter of Newsweek proposed (Link). The issue is about what constitutes life.
But you ask, “Andrew, what happens if you get Parkinson’s disease one day, and scientists have developed a cure using embryonic stem cells. Would you take the treatment?” This is a tough question that… I would like to say, “No, I would not,” but I’m not suffering through it and I would have a hard time turning down something that would help me, even if gained from unethical means. I suppose this is why it’s more important to stop the experimentation before we go too far. The road would take us to dark places that I fear we do not expect nor do we want to experience.

I have always been a day-dreamer. I remember shooting baskets in our backyard for hours, dreaming about this and that, where I was going, and what I was going to do. It was an amazing time that I loved. It was half-exercise and half contemplation. But I doubt that those dreams actually changed much in my life.
The dreams were interesting. They were colorful and exciting, and I did great and amazing things. I conquered the world. I discovered new planets. I was elected as president. Every child has dreams like this, and that’s okay—it’s only the dream of a child. But what happens when adults dream in this manner.
As a preface, don’t interpret this post as bashing dreams. I think dreams are very valid and a healthy part of life. It is good to dream of good things. But two caveats:
1) If the object of the dream becomes the dream itself, then it is no longer a good dream. For example, if I dream of getting a BMW because I want a BMW to gratify myself, it is no longer a good or helpful dream. I am substituting God’s goodness for temporal and unsatisfying pleasure.
2) Any dream that does not change my life is not a true dream. By true dream I mean that any concept which means so much to me that I dream about it, it must affect the way I live my life. If I want to buy a house, then my lifestyle in an apartment would change in a way that would help me to prepare for buying a house. I would start saving money and researching the steps necessary to buy that house. If I was unwilling to start saving or start researching, than that dream is not a “true” dream because it does not actually affect change in my life.
With these guidelines in mind, do your dreams actually qualify as valid, good dreams? Or do you waste your time daydreaming about things that provide no benefit to your life. The most poignant example of this, I think, is that of marriage. I know (and have known) lots of folks (primarily girls) who were ga-ga over the concept of getting married… (And of course, this applies to guys as well…) But what we should do is take a step back from the situation and say, “I’m not married now, so what should I do in my life to prepare for that?” You see, the dream is affecting life because it is changing the manner of living.
If I dreamed of playing in the NBA, it would be prudent of me to play basketball and prepare. I would be at the gym as soon as it was open, shooting, dribbling, passing and playing games. I can dream all I want, but it won’t take me anywhere.
I have certain goals and dreams in my life. I must constantly remind myself that these goals don’t happen overnight or intrinsically. Dreams come to fruition because of intense work that is completed right now, not tomorrow.
You see, that’s the beauty of dreams. It motivates you to prepare for the future because of the goodness and excitement you see in the dream. Now the key is to consider your dreams, watching to see if they positively influence who you are and where you are going.